BRT Scores - Our Scored Corridors

Overview

As Bus Rapid Transit systems are implemented around the world, some systems fall on the border of whether or not they meet BRT Basics. The ITDP does not and cannot score all corridors, and BRTData.org's database is a constant work in progress.

Here at the Metro Route Atlas, when we encounter one of these lower-grade unscored corridors or corridors listed as Not BRT on BRTData.org, we need a way to justify a ranking for the system. Therefore, as of May 2021, prior to entering the quagmire that is Venezuela (containing nearly a half dozen BRT? corridors that we need to classify), we set up a system here for ranking corridors independently.

Now, for the disclaimers. The first thing to note is that it is not always possible to fill in scores for certain design aspects. This means that we are defaulting to 0 points for any field where we cannot make a judgment. Of the BRT Basics, we are entirely dependent on news articles to determine scores for intersection treatment, and are entirely dependent on videos, Google streetview, and publications for determining platform level boarding. Being classified as BRT or BRT-Lite is often the deciding aspect of whether or not a city gets a page on the Metro Route Atlas at all.

BRT Standard Version: 2024

2016/2024 Standard Minimum Requirements:

• At least 3 km (1.9 miles) length with dedicated lanes
• Score 4 or more points in dedicated right-of-way element
• Score 4 or more points in busway alignment element
• Score 20 or more points across all five BRT Basics elements

If a corridor meets the second and third requirements but fails at least one of the other two, we consider the corridor BRT-Lite. BRT-Lite corridors, if the only rapid transit style corridor in a city, result in the city not getting a page on the website (e.g. Mexicali). We only calculate a design score here - it is impossible to measure operational deductions without being on-site, riding the system.

Please note that only the dedicated right of way portion of the corridor is scored for the vast majority of components as per ITDP 2016 or 2024 scoring convention. Lengths of corridors involve half the full round trip length. Subscores for BRT Basics are, in order, Dedicated ROW, Alignment, Off-board Fare Collection, Intersection Treatments, and Platform Level Boarding.

For intersection turn bans that we score, please note that we consider the current state of the road (rather than a comparison of the road pre-BRT and post-BRT), and that any connecting road is considered half a road per side (to account for roads that end at the corridor).

Based off of ITDP scoring data for Uberaba Leste-Oeste, a painted line with small flat blocks attached to the divider surface every meter or so is considered physically separated rather than just a painted line. We will therefore consider these fully permeable (but with physical deterrents to using the lane) treatments to be physically separated here as well.

Corridors scored are in chronological order of our scoring.

Mexico

This section contains our Mexico scores, most of which were initially done informally on paper and later formalized here in order to be more transparent about decisions. These were mainly done in May of 2021, after we had already completed work on Mexico and were preparing for Venezuela.

Notes:

• On March 11, 2021 when we were initially checking if we would make a page for the city, we ran Mexicali through BRT Basics. Even if only the dedicated busway was scored, it failed enough of BRT Basics that it became the first city to be dropped from scope. While the MRA scoring process was not formalized until May 2021, our process for Mexicali is what inspired us to semi-formally score questionable quality corridors to begin with.
• Transmetro Guadalupe was the first corridor that required us to formally determine if it was BRT standard or not in order to set its mode on the MRA. As BRTData.org had the higher quality Acabús in Acapulco labeled as 'Not BRT' and had no ranking for Transmetro Guadalupe, we ran through Transmetro Guadalupe using the 2016 standard in order to ensure that it at least met our standards.
• Querétaro was the first city that was added to the Metro Route Atlas after running corridors through BRT Basics (which is clearly passed).
• Acapulco was the first city that was added to the Metro Route Atlas after running corridors through BRT Basics and coming up with a different opinion on classification than BRTData.org.

Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil

This section contains our scoring data for Juiz de Fora, the first case where we disagreed with the classification of the system as BRT on BRTData.org. Av. Barão do Rio Branco is a high capacity surface transportation corridor along the main thoroughfare of Juiz de Fora. The fact that it is high capacity is undeniable, but it lacks most BRT features. BRTData.org considers it BRT, but we felt the need to perform validation ourselves. Please note that this was not an unbiased ranking, as we did not want to make a page on the Metro Route Atlas for a city whose main BRT corridor didn't have any station names and was almost exclusively comprised of single directional stations. However, when manually counting intersections, it did require rounding up to be meet BRT basics. If the city chooses to upgrade this corridor with level boarding/off-board payment, we will gladly return to make a page for it, even if it means having a map with a bunch of street addresses for stations.

Brazil - High Floor BRS

This section contains our Brazil scores for the three high floor BRS systems opened in the late 1990s and early 2000s - Av. Sertório in Porto Alegre, Av. Capitão Mário Toledo de Camargo in Santo André, and the corridors in Manaus. During initial research and MRA page buildout, Av. Sertório was considered BRT due to level boarding and blocks being on the painted line separator, while Av. Camargo in Santo André was considered BRT due to surrounding a river (most roads dead-ended at the corridor to begin with). However, with Manaus the treatment is worse than both of these and we wanted to make a formal data based decision for whether or not the city should get a page on the Metro Route Atlas, and so in addition to scoring Manaus, we retroactively scored the other two corridors. Perhaps surprisingly, Manaus scored higher than anticipated due to lack of intersections, and so it qualified for a page on the Metro Route Atlas as a result.

2016 BRT Standard (Template)

2024 BRT Standard (Template)